is a blog about design, technology and culture written by Khoi Vinh, and has been more or less continuously published since December 2000 in New York City. Khoi is currently Vice President of User Experience at Wildcard and co-founder of Kidpost. Previously, Khoi was co-founder and CEO of Mixel (acquired by Etsy, Inc.), Design Director of The New York Times Online, and co-founder of the design studio Behavior, LLC. He is the author of “Ordering Disorder: Grid Principles for Web Design,” and was named one of Fast Company’s “fifty most influential designers in America.” Khoi lives in Crown Heights, Brooklyn with his wife and three children. Refer to the advertising and sponsorship page for inquiries.

Menu

Minimalism, Michael Mann and Miami Vice

“Public Enemies,” the new film about the notorious bank robber John Dillinger, is an amazing movie. Then again, I freely confess a predisposition to liking the work of its director, Michael Mann. I’ve seen nearly every movie he’s released, and there’s not a single one of them that I’ve found to be less than completely engrossing.

Over the course of his career, Mann has produced a taut, stylistic and often brutally impersonal filmography that seems most interested in the concept of work. His movies are preoccupied with how men (almost always men) of extraordinary skills practice their craft — and the price they must pay for doing so. “Public Enemies” is no exception, and for those who are expecting a florid character portrait set in a bygone era, make no mistake: this movie is about how John Dillinger robbed banks and about how G-men hunted him down, and only that. It is resolutely disinterested in its principal subjects’ family backgrounds, romantic histories or psychological makeups.

Just a Little Bit

In this way, “Public Enemies,” continues Mann’s ongoing exploration of a stark, almost ascetic kind of narrative sensibility. With a nearly impudent disregard for common storytelling conventions, the director has in recent years taken to gutting from his works anything and everything that might be superfluous to the forward momentum of his core narratives. He affords his characters practically no backstory or prehistory, his plots are reduced to the threadbare, and subplots are often extracted altogether. Including “Public Enemies,” his past three movies are so elemental and succinct (not necessarily in running time, but in scope) that they’re just as much like episodes within a larger series of events as wholly contained feature films of their own.

What’s left out from these movies is as important and beautiful as what’s included. They’re exercises in doing as much as possible with as little as possible, implying whole swaths of narrative information by allowing the audience to extrapolate events, details, backstories and subplots from only the barest hints of their presence. In fact, what Mann is doing here (and why I am so obviously drawn to this sensibility) is designing these stories — not just their presentation but more fundamentally their construction, too — and doing so in a way that evokes many of the very same things that thrill me about design.

Mann employs an architectural approach that establishes a plot framework but declines to fill every nook and cranny. He uses very few elements to suggest many more, and in so doing constructs a kind of environment that the audience experiences rather than a narrative account that the audience observes. This is very much minimalism and experience design at work; it just happens to star Johnny Depp, is all.

A Sequel to Itself

If you find this argument I’m making intriguing but, like many people in these recessionary times, your theatergoing habits are in decline, then you’re in luck. “Public Enemies” is a terrific movie, but in its practice of cinematic minimalism, it doesn’t quite top Mann’s previous feature film, which is available now through the usual rental and retail channels: the box office underperformer “Miami Vice” is perhaps the director’s finest film of the past decade.

People laugh when I tell them how good of a movie “Miami Vice” is, which is understandable. It has two artistically suspect characteristics: first, a cultural legacy inherited from its original television incarnation that, while fondly remembered, is taken not very seriously at all; and second, two leading stars who have long flirted with overexposure and broad hamminess. Let’s face it: it’s called “Miami Vice” and it stars Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx. That’s enough to keep most right thinking people away.

Still, for all of the reasons I outlined above, “Miami Vice” is fascinating filmmaking, and fascinating narrative design too. More so even than “Public Enemies,” it is resolutely schematic in the way it unwinds its tale. Watch it, and you’ll notice how little is really revealed about any of its characters, how little it lingers on any of its locales or settings, and even how it seems to suggest that its sequence of events takes place immediately after many preceding events that have been omitted entirely — it would’ve made a certain kind of sense to have titled it “Miami Vice: Episode 2” instead. And yet, the film draws you in instantly, throwing you into the middle of its events and its universe, and sweeping you along with its sustained tidal wave of action. I saw it three times in theaters.

Minimalism in Your Future

I admit though that this is not everyone’s cup of tea. A fully fleshed-out narrative can be quite comforting, and a narrative that is relentlessly withholding can be quite off-putting. All the same, I think there’s something absorbing about the ideas that Mann is playing with; they show that design thinking, which is not typically applicable to the way film narrative is constructed, can lead to truly distinctive and gripping results. I’m almost certain, too, that this kind of storytelling points to the way more and more directors will make films in the future. (Already, some film writers regard “Miami Vice” to be among the best films of the last decade.) Over time, Mann’s ideas will look more and more prescient, and and these movies will become more and more highly regarded. That tends to happen with good design.

+

Share this:

51 Comments

hmmm… haven’t seen Public Enemies yet, but you have me skeptical with your endorsement of Miami Vice, i don’t remember it quite in that light.

that said, one thing i love about mann’s movies(above the focus how people work, as you mentioned), is the way in which he’s able to capture the essence of the locations in the film. in my mind, nobody captures LA better than Mann (Heat & Collateral come to mind), and even though i didn’t care for the movie, he got Miami well in Miami Vice.

Enjoyed Public Enemies and think it is an excellent film. Christian Bale’s part could have been written a better. He does a fine job as Purvis but his star quality could have mirrored Depp’s persona. Miami Vice is indeed an underrated film I’m not really a fan of either actor still an impressive film.

Heat is also a superb film with epic scope and characters. Perhaps the best of Mann’s films. Pacino’s and Deniro’s pairing is monumental in film history.

I agree with almost everything you say here wholeheartedly, and I’ve actually seen Public Enemies twice already, which partly illustrates how big a fan I am of Mr. Mann.

But there’s another reason I saw that movie twice in its first week of release, and I’m really quite surprised you didn’t mention it here. The first time I saw Public Enemies, I could not stand that it was shot in HD rather than on film. There are parts of this movie that look like it was lit as an episode of Days of Our Lives rather than a big-budget theatrical feature. There’s a long sequence at the end of the second act that looks and feels very much like The Blair Witch Project with gangsters running around instead of a (literally) snot-nosed girl.

Mann is obviously trying to make a classic gangster film appropriate to contemporary cinema (or slightly ahead of it), kind of a new Bonnie and Clyde of sorts. But the anachronism of the HD video in a period piece set in the ’30s is a big leap to ask people to make, and—even more importantly—it really looks terrible a lot of the time. (Whereas in a movie like Collateral, the exact characteristics of the cinematography that I’m referring to fit the story and the setting like a glove—though the light sources in that film are friendlier to video as well (another reason to question the choice here)).

The second time I saw Public Enemies, I sat farther away from the screen and steeled myself to dealing with the video, and I was able to get past it just slightly. Clearly a failed experiment, if you ask me. Which really is a shame when you consider how compelling Depp and the story and the rest of the filmmaking are.

Jonathan: you make an excellent point. The hi-def digital video aspect of “Public Enemies” is a huge part of the movie that deserves a thoughtful appraisal — if only I had the time to get into it! Squeezing blog posts at night means that I frequently can’t cover as much ground as I’d like.

For what it’s worth, I thought the HD was gorgeous; I enjoyed every frame of it. I’d watch the movie again just to look at Dante Spinotti’s beautiful cinematography. I think he and Mann did something quite phenomenal and important with it — in a few years, looking back at this film, the novelty of a period gangster flick shot in HD is going to disappear entirely. It’s going to appear perfectly natural.

I love Mann’s movies. When I saw the Collateral preview I was like hmmm Cruise, oh but it is a Mann movie, same with Miami Vice. I like Depp in general, but this role seemed out there. But is a Mann movie! I also how he makes the action scenes very intense. The shoot outs or fights are always great.

I haven’t seen “Public Enemies” yet, but I do want to also share the love for “Miami Vice”. I saw it in the theatre, and though I didn’t initially think about the skeletal nature of Mann’s storytelling, looking back that certainly lent a tautness to the movie that I found very gripping and involving. Well, that and the gorgeous mood and atmosphere, which were in large part due to the gorgeous cinematography.

It seems to me, since so many of us seem to have an affinity for Miami Vice that is not shared by many others, that maybe Mann’s more recent films – which are no doubt more visually distinct and unique than his first films – appeal better to those with the visual architecture of film in mind. Khoi, I think you nailed it. Most of my friends who don’t like Miami Vice or Collateral are very much “meat and potatoes” viewers, they want their explosions, tits, and creative cursing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that stuff, I love my guilty pleasures as much as the next guy, but… well, I think you see what I’m getting at.

I thought I’d throw my opinion in on the HD thing as well. To me, it seems that Mann is going for a much more organic style of filmmaking. And I don’t just mean visually, though that’s certainly an important part of it, as the HD style gives us such a rich sense of what is happening that, like Khoi says, we feel we are experiencing the story, rather than observing it.

I remember taking theater classes and doing improv games; the point of these games was to teach us that, when on stage, you must always remember that the story you’re telling is just part of a much larger story. The audience just happened to be lucky enough to have walked by to see this part of the story, in essence. In the same sense, it seems Mann is throwing away conventional filmmaking for what he thinks is either a) better for us and/or b) we/he desire more than what we’re currently being fed by Hollywood. Not to make this political, but with cookie-cutter movies coming out increasingly more often it might be time to break the mold a bit, and Mann is certainly doing that, along with other spectacular filmmakers like Christopher Nolan.

I’m a huge fan of Mann’s, and enjoyed Public Enemies, but it looked terrible at times. So much so that it took me out of the movie — the pixelating leaves in some scenes, the skies that blow out to white with almost no detail, the video grain in low-lit night scenes. I couldn’t help but to think that part of Mann’s adherence to HD video in his last three films (incl. Collateral and Miami Vice, which also looked horrible) has to do with some personal vendetta he has to do films his own way, no matter how they look. Almost a personal F-U to some invisible demon that once excoriated him for not getting-with-the-program. This is consistent with his use of electronic music in the scores of all his films – even ones that would seem to call for a different sound.

Think of how beautifully shot Heat, Ali, and The Insider were. Luxuriate in those images in your mind. Then think of the current trio: Collateral, ‘Vice, Public Enemies. There is literally no comparison. It is as if, by stripping away the indulgent visuals he is more able to design the “user experience” of his films in a mode specific to the rest of his minimalism.

And yet. I’ll be there opening weekend for the next one. No matter how it looks. Sigh.

Mann is able to present these movies with threadbare plots mostly because the stories are rooted in American lore. I am looking forward to seeing Public Enemies. When watching the trailer, I couldn’t help but wonder if this is maybe a remake of John Milius’ 1973 film Dillinger.

I have to disagree about this film. Your explanation for why you love it is exactly the reason why I hated it.

The lack of a narrative sensibility is precisely the reason why there is no emotional connection with the film and why most people will complain that the film was “boring.” I kept waiting and waiting for something to personal to happen, to pull me into the film, but it never occurred.

I didn’t care about Depp’s character because I had no idea what his backstory was. Without that I had no understanding of why he was the way he was or what kind of personal issues he was dealing with. A story has to have this if there is to be any emotional empathy from the audience.

Furthermore, there was no explanation for why he “stole from the rich but not the poor.” I was really hoping for some deeper understanding/connection with this story and the present financial situation. Seems like there were some missed opportunities for meaningful connections.

I guess overall that’s my main complaint with it – it was a grocery list of things that happened with no real attempt at creating some greater meaning to them.

Completely agree with the HD complaints.

As far as Michael Mann goes, while I thought Miami Vice was missing some things, Collateral was fantastic.

Anyone under the impression that Mann’s work here is sacrosanct clearly can’t be reasoned with.

Hear are a few things about PE that I just couldn’t shake off:

– An anemic, virtually non-existent score/soundtrack.
– Secondary characters that seem like they should go somewhere but don’t . . . and 3rd rate characters that get way more emphasis than they merit.
– Glaring historical inaccuracies cribbed from previous movies.
– Flat-out inept cinematic craftsmanship. (It’s not guerilla, it’s garbage)
– A finale/death scene I can only describe as “CSI:Chicago”.

I could go on (lack of meaningful narrative, primary characters drawn with zero richness/depth) but what’s the point. Everyone involved with this film should be ashamed of themselves . . . with the possible exception of the Head Costumer.

Lance: No one said this movie or Mann’s work are “sacrosanct.” Based on your tone, I would guess that you’re more difficult to reason with than most. All the same, I respect the opinion of those, like yourself and Jim, who didn’t like this movie or don’t like Mann’s reductive style. Everyone’s free to disagree. There’s no reason to be rude about it.

I know I shouldn’t care about this, and I accept — if not welcome — any derision I get from posting this, but being disinterested is a very different thing from being uninterested, which is what I think you meant. Disinterested basically means being impartial. Sorry. It’s a pet peeve, and you write so well in general it really grates to be hit with that in the middle of a post.

Of course, you could argue that Mann’s perspective is one of the disinterested observer, or that the film in general is in some way disinterested when it comes to judging the actions or behaviours of the characters. But I suspect that you meant that it was uninterested.

Huw: Point well taken; it’s a subtle but meaningful distinction. Thanks for pointing it out (and for not doing so in trollish fashion). I should probably change it in the text, but that sort of feels like cheating.

Considering the talent involved in Public Enemies, it was a big disappointment. A not-so-solid script filled with, as others have pointed out, inaccuracies that weakened the story when compared to the actual historical events; characters with no development or narrative arc at all; cheesy made-for-TV video quality; Christian Bale utterly wasted on a flat and soulless version of a really interesting historical person — a man Hoover ruined out of fear that he would steal his career! It all added up to a feeling of “That should have been so much better.”

I enjoy finding the running themes in Mann’s various films. Sometimes he lifts lines, sets, or even whole scenes from one movie and plants them in a later one. In /Public Enemies/, Depp’s character says “We’re here for the bank’s money, not yours” which is also a line for DeNiro in /Heat/. I also found some parallels between /Heat/’s famous DeNiro-Pacino scene when Depp and Bale face off in the jail.

Re: Dorkenheimer – I didn’t feel that Bale was wasted on a poorly written character, but more that Bale has retreated into such a mechanical style of acting that he couldn’t convey Purvis as properly conflicted. I don’t know if it’s the Batman movies or what, but recently Bale seems to be either dead serious and monotone or bat guano loopy, with little room in between. When I saw the last scene of PE, I almost started laughing at how obviously hard (and unsuccessfully) Bale was trying to screw his face up into some sort of emotion.

Could Purvis have been given something more to do, more depth, more character study? Sure, and I agree with you that he has a fascinating story. But the movie was called Public Enemies, not Public Defenders.

I agree with everything except the endorsement of the latest film, Public Enemies. I saw it two days ago, even before Bruno, which was also high on my list (and is hilarious, BTW.) My friend and I, both ardent Mann fans, came out and said, (shrug) “Eh.” When we tried to figure out what gave us that impression, we decided that the cinematography was sloppy – too many medium shots, straight on – and maybe the most boring bank robbery scenes ever. I think a movie about a bank robber should be exciting. I can’t believe I’m in the minority here. The bank robbery scenes were short and simple and included almost no tension. No intricate planning or deft execution – just a couple guys, shoot the ceiling, maybe kill an innocent guard, and you’re out. After the bank scene in Heat, which will probably stand the test of time as the best bank robbery scene ever, or the best cinematic gun fight ever, or both, this new one was a total disappointment. And in Heat there was significant character development and resolution. The ending of this one seemed gimmicky, because the love story wasn’t as well developed as the one between the criminals in Heat and their respective ladies. All in all, I think the reviewer is correct in praising Mann’s vision, but this latest effort was nowhere near the same calibre. Minimalism can only carry you so far.

Despite being a teenager at the time the Miami Vice television series was airing, I was never a fan. In 1986, however, I saw “Manhunter” in the theaters. It’s remained one of my favorite movies, and I’ve watched it many times since. I’ve often wondered at the different feel of the Hannibal Lecter character in Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs, and I think your essay nicely captures the differences.

I am going to go back and re-watch both Manhunter and Miami Vice with your essay in mind.

I am surprised again and again about the attention actors are getting in discussion of qualities of films if such noted directors as Michael Mann. Actors are just cattle in the hands of directors, said Hitchcock and I completely agree with him.

In other words, the best a well-known actor can do in a movie is to make audience forget this is Depp or Cruise or Foxx, etc.

I really enjoyed “Heat” and “Collateral” and although I haven’t seen “Miami Vice” yet I’m willing to give Mann the benefit of the doubt.
But “Public Enemies” was insultingly boring.

Mann has elevated this movie to such such a level of high art that he’s left out one of the key ingredients of a masterpiece: storytelling. I couldn’t help but realize that two thirds of the way through the movie, I didn’t care about any of the characters and none of the remorse Depp acts for his fallen costars felt convincing in that the movie never provided any evidence that Depp’s character felt one way or another about his compatriots.

I also take serious issue with the use of digital cinematography. Digital’s narrow dynamic range, lack of depth of field control, and horrendous handling of specular highlights continually forced me out of the world presented in this period piece. While there are ways of ridding these restrictions that digital places on creativity and even digital technologies that rival film (Red Digital Cinema for instance) the method of cinematography that Mann employs in this film seems to me simply a way of expressing how avant guard Mann is.

This movie was not worth the $10 I paid to see it, popcorn entertainment OR mind opening art-form.

There was quite a bit in “Public Enemies” that wasn’t true. So while Mann may not take on Love, he doesn’t take on honesty either. Who Dillinger was with when he died, for example. How he died (in a shootout, not a walk-up from behind shot). That he was faithful to one woman (he was a womanizer who regularly slept with prostitutes). Etc etc etc. Read some history about Dillinger and you’ll spot the obvious fabrications.

“His movies are preoccupied with how men (almost always men) of extraordinary skills practice their craft…”

I think precisely what I didn’t like about Public Enemies was that there was no display of process or craft. The crew didn’t prep for the bank robbery (or at least we didn’t see any). They just ran inside, flashed their guns, ran out, and hopped in their cars. When Dillinger gets caught, he’s in and out of the prison in seconds on the screen. The timeline of events just moved so quick. After a while, I felt like I was watching a big budget History channel documentary.

I think a number of people who claim that the film looks badly shot because it was done in video should change their comments to “I’m used to the aesthetic of film, and this is different, so I don’t like it.”

The movie was brilliantly shot…on video. Most DPs would kill to do work that well. It carries a different look and I’m sure that’s why Mann chose it. He also chose not to put it through a post process to make it look like film (dulling the reds, capping highlights) like they did with films like Superman. I think it adds to the neutrality of Mann’s depiction because of its use in non-fiction, but it is also more intimate with the subjects. Low light and night shots appear more naturalistic as well.

There are parts of this movie that look like it was lit as an episode of Days of Our Lives rather than a big-budget theatrical feature.

Oh thank god, not just me. Bits of it looked terrible. I was silently crying out for a bit of non-handheld and it just kept throwing me right out of the movie. I’m all in favour of experimentation, but to be repeatedly hit over the head with something that cinematographically anachronistic was just too much.

The resistance to Michael Mann’s original 1980s tv series of Miami Vice may be even more extreme than to the movie, but it’s hard to remember today how revolutionary it was for television. It really put Mann on the map, and his visual sense and attention to detail was all there. (The directors on the show had a “no earth tones” directive: “There are certain colors you are not allowed to shoot, such as red and brown. If the script says ‘A Mercedes pulls up here,’ the car people will show you three or four different Mercedes. One will be white, one will be black, one will be silver. You will not get a red or brown one. Michael knows how things are going to look on camera.”)

One of the most memorable moments was the “Something in the Air” sequence, part of which is shown here, as Crockett and Tubbs head to a (doomed) drug bust:

Finally saw “public enemies” and liked it very much. What striked my particularly is how Mann likes to show bodies but not faces, which provokes impression of the action, movement, but not so much heroes and actors.

This is one of my strongest impression of the movie, how Mann builds a movie as story, without giving very much credit to actors as such. Actors, especially American ones with all their celebrity status really overshadows any movie.

Otherwise, this is story of males, of our understanding of manliness, how glorious it is, to be a Man, to rely on oneself, to care about your woman, to face danger without fear and so on.

The Video aesthetic is not new at all, it’s on TV all the time. I don’t believe there were many advantages to choosing video for Public Enemies. Sure, there are a few images that look gorgeous in the movie (usually when their quality makes them look like they were shot with film), but many others look terrible! Meaning that you can see digital defects on the images (pixels, blue auras around blown out highlights, digital noise in dark scenes) and I can’t understand how this contributes to the concept that is considered the director’s main concern.

The argument that video makes some scenes more intimate and naturalistic, doesn’t convince me either. Seeing some images with low quality, makes me feel more into a low budget movie set then into the actual story. I just don’t see any link between video limitations and the story depicted. There is no point in wanting to make this movie in video other than wanting to innovate by using a new technology just because it’s available. And honestly there are other ways of innovating without having frames on the movie looking like they were shot with a sony cybershot.

Khoi, you summed up MV’s appeal so perfectly — it’s a stunning piece of design and ruthless streamlining and is best appreciated on that level. But I did find that I loved the director’s cut even more — just a few extra bits of emotional connective tissue turned it from a cold, brutal piece of visual architecture into, well, the same thing, but with the added appeal of feeling *inhabited* in a human way.

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

i worked in miami vice in 2005 with the union and i only will say one thing miami vice is Don johnson and phillip michael thomas they were ready to come back but michael mann dint want Don johnson big mistake the movie sucked a total flop

I am a fan of Michael Mann and a HUGE fan of Miami Vice (the tv series). I saw bits and pieces of MV, the movie. I was not sold on Jamie Foxx as Rico.

I would really love to see an sequel the Miami Vice (the TV series) that brings back Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas. I think PMT and DJ worked well together and had a great chemistry on the show. I also think and feel a lot of us would love to see this show come back. No other TV series was like it then or now. Sure, there are a lot of police shows on TV, but no other show used fast, expensive cars and boats, sexy women, and great hip music together like in MV!

I have a great idea for a sequel to MV. Does anyone know how I can get in contact with Michael Mann?